Compulsory Annuities: worrying way of planning

I think there are many ways to look at the compulsory annuities. It seems to me that the government is looking into ways to generate more profit rather than looking after the citizens. They get this big picture view about the economy and how to maximise it with the available resources. It would definitely be good for the financial players. They welcome it with open arms. You get people like Christopher Tan CEO of Providend praising the scheme. I think he is visualising the future earnings. It is good for the financial market. Stimulates growth and open up new sectors. Earn more money. It relieves the government from supporting the aged. It is fantastic plan!!!! The question is, do I want to sustain the high economic growth at the expense of my citizens.

Let's look at the annuity plan. Dr Ng says, "The aim is to provide a subsistence payout amount first, of possibly between $250 and $300 monthly. " What are they doing . Are they looking at the bottom line for the companies offering annuities or looking into the interest of the citizens? This is ridiculous when we hear that $290 is not enough to have 3 meals a day in present day Singapore, they are suggesting we subsist with $250-$300 30 years down the road.

Secondly, no data was provided for the correlation between social economic status and life expectancy. Logic would suggest that poorer citizens have a lower life expectancy because they do not have access to premium healthcare. If that is the case, it would be illogical for the payout to be at 85. Most of the people who can afford to retire gets the $300(1/2000 of a peanut as if they care), while those who cannot afford a decent retirement gets less from their CPF payouts and their money thrown into the annuity pool to the feed the rich. This is of course the worst case scenario. Again I don't think much thought is put into it planning and deciding of the age. They made their actuacrial calculations and know that it is going to grow wealth for the companies. Did they ask if it is helpful for the citizens.

I am sure there are many other ways to analysis it, but I guess the bottom line is that citizens are shortchanged with this kind of policy planning. It seems that preserving the reserve is more important that serving the well-derserved who have built the nation. So now, sacrifice for the nation so that we might have hugh reserve to ensure MORE GOOD YEARS! ZZZzzzz sleepy already. Forgive me if I sound incoherent.

The Christian Agenda!?

I cannot get it why they like to blame Christians for believing different things. First of all Christianity believe homosexuality is a sin. It doesn't mean that Christians hate gays. No one says anything about hating sinners. We are all sinners. However, Christianity doesn't teach us to accept sin(as in, say it is ok to sin).

Secondly I don't think what the homosexuals want to do, is within our control. If they want it, just give it to them. In fact I have no idea why the government still wants to keep that archaic law. Just know that the Christian stand is clear. Homosexuality is a sin. I always believe God gave choices. We live with the consequences. The duty of the church is to tell the gospel not to enforce anything. Only the church is subjected and accountable to their leaders.

Thirdly, Christianity is not about the law but inner transformation. The law can restrain, but only inner transformation can deliver.